North End-Huntington Heights Architectural Review Board

October 6, 2005 Minutes

Present:  Phil Shook, Bea Dahlen, Fred Whittaker, Anita Garner, Carolyn Hughes, Steve Hudak.

Minutes were approved with minor modifications. 

COA-05-147 was presented as an application to build a small deck or stoop and steps on the back of the house.  The Board noted that the project could not be seen from the street.  Mr. Shook asked the applicant if he would be willing to box in the pickets with a facing board.  The applicant stated that he had no problem with this request.  The application was approved unanimously as submitted with the above stated modification.

COA-05-148 was presented as an application to install a dog-eared style fence that would match the existing fencing on the adjacent property.  The application was unanimously approved as submitted.

COA-05-145 was a resubmission.  This case was heard at September’s meeting but the applicant did not show up to discuss the Board’s concerns.  The applicant failed to show up at this meeting as well.  The Board voted unanimously to deny the COA based on the same criteria stated at September’s meeting.  Mr. Shook asked staff to notify Codes regarding the property.  Mr. Watson stated that it was the Codes Compliance Department that required the submission of this application.

New Business

None

Old Business

Harold Roach, Director of Codes Compliance introduced himself to the board.  A discussion followed regarding the policy of accepting board complaints in writing only.  Mr. Roach stated that board members could call in complaints like any other citizen.  However, if there were multiple complaints about the same issue, Mr. Roach would like the complaint in writing as this will aid in tracking and resolution of the issue.  Mr. Roach and the board then carried on a discussion regarding enforcement issues and procedures.  Mr. Roach noted that there are more enforcement issues in the City than the Department of Codes Compliance is able to address.  Citizens know this and will sometimes exploit this fact.  Mr. Whittaker asked how COAs were tracked once approved.  Mr. Watson responded that a copy of the COA letter of approval or denial is provided to the Codes Compliance Department.  Mr. Roach and Mr. Watson acknowledged that there might be a breakdown in the system regarding COAs and ACOAs that do not require building permits, such as roofs and windows.

The board mentioned their desire for a member of the Codes Compliance Department to attend the ARB meetings.  Mr. Roach noted that his staff works 40+ hours a week at a very tedious job.  Thus he is concerned about committing them to several more hours.

The Board stated that at their December they would discuss updating the ARB guidelines.  Codes Compliance staff is encouraged to attend that meeting to voice any input they might have.

The Board discussed the possibility of having a work session prior to the regularly scheduled meeting.  Staff noted that any meeting of three or more members of the ARB is considered a public meeting and must be advertised as such and open to the public.  Staff further questioned the need for such a meeting noting that any discussion of an application must be conducted in the presence of the applicant.  While a work session is held by City Council, it is advertised and a member of the press is present.  None of the subordinate boards or commissions in the city hold work sessions.

The Board discussed the need for applications to contain complete information such as pictures, plats and schematics for evaluation.  The applications must have proper documentation.  Mr. Roach, staff and the Board discussed the standard procedures involved in tracking applications and enforcement of Board decisions.

Mr. Whittaker noted that there are many instances of people parking on lawns, an activity banned under the ARB guidelines.  He would like to extend that prohibition to include side yards along Warwick Boulevard.  Cars should not be parked on seed areas and should only be parked on an improved surface.

Mr. Whittaker also brought up the issue of regulating color.  He mentioned that he believes that colors that are inappropriate to the neighborhood can negatively impact property values.  The Board should have a veto power as a way to look at colors in a measured way to determine if it makes sense for that particular structure without being dictatorial.  The Board members stated, and staff concurred, that to regulate colors in the neighborhood would be impossible due to the eclectic nature of the housing stock.  Further, the Board is not supposed to rule on aesthetic issues.

In closing, Mr. Shook requested a copy of the previous three years’ December meetings in order to review guideline amendments.